r3wp [groups: 83 posts: 189283]
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

World: r3wp

[!Cheyenne] Discussions about the Cheyenne Web Server

Louis
12-Oct-2006
[158x3]
No.
However, since it wasn't working, I did set the includes to the SDK 
sources on my harddrive, and then reencapped.
For the tests, I get the same results whither Cheyenne is running 
or not.
Dockimbel
12-Oct-2006
[161x4]
Did you tried without encapping, just using the sourced version ?
The encapping procedure is special for Cheyenne, it needs to be run 
in normal mode first before encapping to preprocess the source and 
generate the .cache.efs file.
Btw you shouldn't get any result if Cheyenne is not running !
Are you testing using the http://localhosturl ?
Louis
12-Oct-2006
[165]
OK, http://localhostworks. I have a lot to learn, as you can see. 
Thanks for helping me through this. I was just clicking on the index.html 
file in the www folder.
BrianH
12-Oct-2006
[166x2]
Can you make the session storage server a RebService, called from 
the various processes that need to read/write the data? That overhead 
might be less than the SQL overhead.
I haven't had a chance to review the Cheyenne source yet. Are the 
subprocesses called by a central broker? Perhaps that broker can 
manage the session data. That way any in-process accesses could be 
almost as fast as straight block access, with only API overhead.
Will
12-Oct-2006
[168]
Brian, that is exaclty how sessions are handled right now. Sessions 
are managed by central broker uniserve with service httpd.r and data 
exchanged with task-handlers subprocesses executing rsp
BrianH
12-Oct-2006
[169]
Well, if you package the session data in a manager API, you can export 
that API as a REBOL Service that subprocess can use as well.
Will
12-Oct-2006
[170]
are rebol services stable and fast?
BrianH
12-Oct-2006
[171x2]
Not sure. I remember that there was a version built on UniServe, 
same as Cheyenne, so we could use that.
Or was it built on BEER?
Dockimbel
12-Oct-2006
[173]
It's BEER I guess, not UniServe/
Louis
12-Oct-2006
[174x3]
Does the REBOL/Plugin work with Cheyenne?
Doc, please see my posts in the Plugin-2 group.
Also, would be nice to have a link on your Cheyenne page to your 
Cheyenne blog.
Dockimbel
13-Oct-2006
[177x2]
REBOL/Plugin: yes, as any other HTTP client.
Blog: I'll add it this WE, I'm still doing adding some features to 
the blog, I'd like to test it a few days more with a low traffic.
BrianH
13-Oct-2006
[179]
I'd love if there were an LNS implementation built on UniServe. This 
would let you turn Cheyenne into a general purpose app server.
Pekr
13-Oct-2006
[180]
general? Rebol general,no? maybe XML-RPC would be interesting for 
non-rebol world, but it could be added too ....
BrianH
13-Oct-2006
[181x2]
I've been thinking of LNS syntax shims that would allow REBOL services 
to be called by non-REBOL clients.
Does Cheyenne have an option to limit which network adapters it will 
serve to? For example, I have 5 adapters on this computer (ethernet, 
wireless, 2 VMware, Hamachi), maybe 6 counting localhost, and I would 
like the web server to only be visible to the virtual adapters, not 
even opening a port on the physical ones.


I remember this being difficult in REBOL, that REBOL would always 
open server ports on all available adapters, so you would have to 
inspect the incoming connections and filter. Have you come up with 
a better workaround for this, or a way to do it properly?
Pekr
13-Oct-2006
[183]
IIRC via set-modes/get-modes, you can know what adapter is involved. 
I am afraid there is no other way how to prevent this. Opening a 
socket is OS thing imo, and I wonder if C socket functions allow 
you to choose your device?
BrianH
13-Oct-2006
[184]
They do, AFAIK. I do have the standard Windows firewall installed, 
but it would be better (lower overhead) to just not open the port 
on the wrong adapters in the first place.
Dockimbel
13-Oct-2006
[185]
It can be done at the C socket level, unfortunately, I don't know 
any way of doing that from REBOL.  I guess that's not supported in 
the current REBOL port!.
Graham
13-Oct-2006
[186x2]
Can Cheynne support Ajax ?
Does each http request spawn a new instance ?
Dockimbel
13-Oct-2006
[188x2]
Ajax is sending standard HTTP requests, so yes.
you mean a new REBOL process ?
Graham
13-Oct-2006
[190x3]
yes.
or uniserve task
Can RSP pages retreive content using async http and return them to 
the client?
Dockimbel
13-Oct-2006
[193x2]
HTTP requests for static ressource are handled in multiplexing mode 
by the main Cheyenne process. Only CGI or RSP can currently spawn 
a new process if there's no free process available to handle the 
job.
Async in RSP: there's nothing preventing that from being used.
Graham
13-Oct-2006
[195x2]
Good to confirm this
I haven't downloaded your latest versions yet .. is a console visible 
?
Dockimbel
13-Oct-2006
[197]
Only for the main process, console are hidden for bagckground processes.
Graham
13-Oct-2006
[198]
Can that be hidden as well to use Cheyenne as an embedded web server?
Dockimbel
13-Oct-2006
[199]
Of course, just add 'no-window to Cheyenne.r encap header.
Terry
13-Oct-2006
[200]
mod-rewrite module for powerful request URL transformations (without 
the regexp complexity!).

There's been some discussion around here on the future of .htaccess 
... the timing of this feature may be perfect.
Will
13-Oct-2006
[201x2]
You can find an alpha mod-rewrite here http://softinnov.org/cheyenne/blog.cgi
is is parse base, each rule consist of a match block!, a transform 
block! and a logic! to continue thru next rule or break
MikeL
14-Oct-2006
[203]
Doc... Have you thought about NTLM support for Cheyenne?
Oldes
14-Oct-2006
[204]
(maybe there should be max-width specified in the css for the code 
block in the blog)
Dockimbel
14-Oct-2006
[205]
Unfortunately, 'max-width is not supported by Internet Explorer.
Oldes
15-Oct-2006
[206x2]
but at least under rest of the browsers it would looks better (and 
with overflow: scroll)
(overflow: auto)